Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations establish this is a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description goes well beyond that: it discloses the blocking duration and cap, the full state machine returned (done/pending/cancelled/expired/unknown), the 15-minute link lifetime via expiresAt, and the prescribed agent action for each state. This is exactly the behavioral context annotations alone cannot convey.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The core action and the 'call it right after' instruction are front-loaded, and the per-state bullets are scannable. It is slightly verbose, repeating 'Send the SAME script again' across two states, but nearly every sentence carries actionable guidance.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description fully carries the return-value burden by enumerating each state and the required follow-up. Combined with the timing and expiry details, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and react to any outcome.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, and the description largely restates the same ref source and the same waitMs default/maximum. It does not add syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb+resource (wait until the user finishes a sign-in link) and frames the scope precisely: it watches a live sign-in rather than driving it. It is clearly distinguished from siblings like add_connection (which issues the link) and run/run_view.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit when-to-use: 'Call it right after you give the user the link, in the same turn', with the prerequisite that the link be written first. It also states when it cannot be used (a ref starting 'site:' cannot be watched; wait for the user instead) and tells the agent not to ask the user whether they are done.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.